Zenqo · Two-Way Steelman
Stress-test choices before making key decisions
Zenqo · Two-Way Steelman
Stress-test choices before making key decisions
Showcase
Description
Methodology skill | Two-Way Steelman. Build the strongest case for both directions, identify disagreements and key variables, then make a judgment.
Related Skills
View allSteelman Major Decisions
Before making a major decision, don’t rush to a snap judgment. This skill helps you think the problem through before reaching a conclusion: clarify the real problem you need to solve, surface hidden assumptions you may not realize you’re making, steelman the strongest arguments on both sides, identify the critical point of disagreement—the condition that would flip the conclusion—and finally ask you the one question most likely to change the outcome. After you answer, it gives you a clear judgment and concrete action steps—not the empty claim that “both sides have a point.” Use it for career choices, technology selection, product direction, business decisions, investment judgments, team disagreements, and any moment when you find yourself saying, “Help me think this through.” How to use it: Enter the decision you’re wrestling with. For example: “Should I leave my big-tech job to start a company?” “Should we use option A or B for this solution?” or “Should we cut this product line?”
Deep Critical Analysis
Deliver high-quality critical analysis of any viewpoint: strengthen both sides of the argument through steelmanning, distinguish facts from value judgments, balance inductive and deductive reasoning, and reconstruct ideas from first principles. Conclude with a careful assessment that includes confidence levels, conditions of applicability, and questions that still need to be verified. Supports short viewpoints as well as long-form text or file input, with online search available to strengthen the factual basis.
LessWrong: Disputes & Decisions
Turn controversial issues, policy discussions, article arguments, and comment-section disputes into clearer, testable analysis that can guide action. This skill draws on the LessWrong rationalist tradition, but does not represent an official LessWrong position. Its focus is not on winning debates, but on distinguishing facts, causal explanations, value judgments, policy proposals, predictions, and personal strategies—and avoiding the mistake of treating emotion, conviction, or volume as evidence. It helps you examine evidence quality, unknowns, base rates, and alternative explanations; identify exaggerated claims such as “everyone thinks,” anecdotal reasoning presented as a general rule, attacks on motives, and identity-based arguments; and steelman the other side’s most reasonable position. It also looks for the real disagreements that would change the conclusion and analyzes the relationship between incentives, constraints, and practical action. Whether you are reviewing a controversial article, improving your own argument, understanding a comment-section conflict, or comparing options with incomplete information, you will receive tentative conclusions, key reservations, conditions for updating your judgment, and suggested next steps. For time-sensitive or specialized facts, it will clearly identify what needs further verification rather than filling gaps with false certainty.
Information
- Version
- v5
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
